Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
enderland07

What problems would +/-1 matchmaking NOT help address?

171 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
1 hour ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Going to -1/+1 MM is just a "feel-good" action, a placebo, it will do nothing.

Boy could you have not walked into this harder: the whole point of the phrase 'placebo' is that it is a small, or meaningless action that somehow gets results. So point of fact yes, +-MM may be a 'placebo' but *boy* could we use some placebo effect in this game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

....Seriously dude you need to learn how to use the words you intend to use. You look like a right git when you walk into stuff like that.

 

 

 

And that's all aside from my point: GO PLAY T4. T4 is MUCH more 'standardized' than T8. Is it perfect? NO! Who said +-1 MM would be *perfect?* But it's *better!* That's the problem with black-and-white, closed minded, short sited folks; it's either got to be the PERFECT, 100% functioning solution, or don't bother we'll just sit in crap. Incremental improvements are not a thing to be discounted out of hand.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
39 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

1. Subjective opinion. This is a 12v12 game. Ships rarely fight 1v1 in this game. Give me a Scharnhorst in a T9 game and I'll do just fine because I WON'T take on the Iowa head-on. I'll do other stuff. Potatoes are gonna potate no matter how restrictive you make the MM.

3. Past behavior by WG shows this statement to be untrue.

4. False. Ranked battles have had such MM restrictions of varying types and is incredibly boring due to the lack of variety and also incredibly unfair due to some ships being too restricted in their play style due to always facing the same ships. 

1: What's stopping that Iowa you're ignoring from putting 16 inch holes in you, though?

2: Past balancing is colored by +2/-2 MM that requires WG to make premiums overpowered just so people feel like it's worth spending money on them, or underpowered just so WG can say "But not EVERY premium is OP on release!" like Krasny Krym, Huanghe, or Duca d'Aosta-- curiously all cruisers. Huh. Ships that are merely competitive in their own tier, but don't do well when bottom tier-- such as Roma, Atago, or Kii-- are critically panned as not worth the money. Huh.

(Note, this is especially jarring since 1 year ago, before the protected tier 4, Atago was considered a must-have for anyone who liked cruisers. Now with protected T4 and the enforced "T8s are just bad T10s now" MM meta, it's considered one of the worst cruisers in its range due to its...well, its range being non-competitive with T10s. And remember how Roma's poor accuracy and capped 18km range were a dealbreaker for a lot of potential buyers due to how it turned out to affect her ability to compete vs T10s?)

3: Ranked battles have less variety for reasons unrelated to the narrow tier spread and far more connected to 7-ship teams with very little space for anything but the most versatile ships since the roles cannot be spread around as much. 7v7 is a different format with different expectations and requirements than 12v12, please remember this.

 

As @_RC1138 said above: +1/-1 isn't perfect, but tier 4 proves that it's better for the player experience than +2/-2 and reasonable logic dictates that if extended to all tiers (since every tier should be treated the same, we're in this mess in the first place because of MM inequality in tier spreads) it would have a positive net effect on premium ship and premium time sales and a positive impact on overall player experience.

 

Also, no. The points made that it doesn't fix player behavior issues are correct. But it does fix player experience issues which can lead to changes in the long term that affect player behavior.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
31 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Boy could you have not walked into this harder: the whole point of the phrase 'placebo' is that it is a small, or meaningless action that somehow gets results. So point of fact yes, +-MM may be a 'placebo' but *boy* could we use some placebo effect in this game.

....Seriously dude you need to learn how to use the words you intend to use. You look like a right git when you walk into stuff like that.

A placebo (/pləˈsb/ plə-SEE-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please")[3][4] is a substance or treatment with no active therapeutic effect.[5] A placebo may be given to a person in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment.

 

A placebo is for people that think their sick, but aren't. If I get syphilis and get a placebo as a treatment, I will die. IF I get cancer and receive a placebo as treatment, I will die. If I'm a pathological hypochondriac and don't receive a placebo, I will live. 

....seriously dude, you need to know what you're talking about before you can assume a superiority complex.

 

BTW, are you stating all those that think a -2/+2 mm is an issue, are hypochondriacs in need of fake medicine, cause that's what I'm getting from this drivel you're shissing here.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
2 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

BTW, are you stating all those that think a -2/+2 mm is an issue, are hypochondriacs in need of fake medicine, cause that's what I'm getting from this drivel you're shissing here.

This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that. You're the one who incorrectly brought medical terminology into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

A placebo (/pləˈsb/ plə-SEE-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please")[3][4] is a substance or treatment with no active therapeutic effect.[5] A placebo may be given to a person in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment.

 

A placebo is for people that think their sick, but aren't. If I get syphilis and get a placebo as a treatment, I will die. IF I get cancer and receive a placebo as treatment, I will die. If I'm a pathological hypochondriac and don't receive a placebo, I will live. 

....seriously dude, you need to know what you're talking about before you can assume a superiority complex.

 

BTW, are you stating all those that think a -2/+2 mm is an issue, are hypochondriacs in need of fake medicine, cause that's what I'm getting from this drivel you're shissing here.

See

26 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

As @_RC1138 said above: +1/-1 isn't perfect, but tier 4 proves that it's better for the player experience than +2/-2 and reasonable logic dictates that if extended to all tiers (since every tier should be treated the same, we're in this mess in the first place because of MM inequality in tier spreads) it would have a positive net effect on premium ship and premium time sales and a positive impact on overall player experience.

 

Also, no. The points made that it doesn't fix player behavior issues are correct. But it does fix player experience issues which can lead to changes in the long term that affect player behavior.

Because that was what I was pretty much about to say. That, and that you're a moron who couldn't reach further with a grip stick. You also need to read up on the Placebo effect and how abnormally active it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that. You're the one who incorrectly brought medical terminology into it.

 

35 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Boy could you have not walked into this harder: the whole point of the phrase 'placebo' is that it is a small, or meaningless action that somehow gets results. So point of fact yes, +-MM may be a 'placebo' but *boy* could we use some placebo effect in this game.

Really?

play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
2 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Really?

play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

How stupid do you actually think I am?

He was responding to your statement, re-quoted below:

2 hours ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Going to -1/+1 MM is just a "feel-good" action, a placebo, it will do nothing.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts

Also, there's a secondary issue relating to the OP that's being ignored: there are no downsides, no real ones at least, being espoused by the other side of this issue. That is to say, there aren't negatives to switching to a +-1 MM. The [edited], 'MM/queue times will skyrocket!' is deflated completely as NO one has the numbers to back that up but evidence of the fracturing of the MM having little/no effect dissuades that notion (having Ranked, Operations, CoOp and Clan battles running simultaneously doesn't seem to hurt MM times AT ALL). Likewise the argument that it will make matches boring is subjective, and likewise untested; and likewise is refuted to a degree by Tiers 1-4 being enjoyable with +-1 MM (I never hear anyone posting on the forums, "God T3 is SOOO boring since I only see 2's or 4's").

Conversely, those that want a +-1 MM see it as a possible route to improving their gameplay experience, perhaps altering metas, increasing both new players and ESPECIALLY player retention, more profitability for wargaming (as completely outclassed Prems might not be as bad with a reduced spread), and want to at least see it tried.

So you have one side that would rather wallow in crapwith no improvements, and another side whose potential improvement carries little to no determent and might be vastly better. Well if you needed further proof of which side is filled with MORONS and which side is not I don't know if there's a less subtle way to show it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

See

Because that was what I was pretty much about to say. That, and that you're a moron who couldn't reach further with a grip stick. You also need to read up on the Placebo effect and how abnormally active it is.

I gave you, literally the definition of a placebo, you're now arguing that that definition is wrong, in the context of how I used it... I think you need to be upgraded from a placebo to something stronger so that you mental condition can better controlled.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

How stupid do you actually think I am?

I don't think you want me to answer that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
6 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

How stupid do you actually think I am?

He was responding to your statement, re-quoted below:

Just set him to ignore, that's what I did. He's borderline retarded and clearly hasn't read anything longer than a cereal box, and is bringing nothing to the debate beyond, "Waaa, I'd rather see things stay the way they are then MAYBE improve with something that causes no downsides, WAAAA!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Just set him to ignore, that's what I did. He's borderline retarded and clearly hasn't read anything longer than a cereal box, and is bringing nothing to the debate beyond, "Waaa, I'd rather see things stay the way they are then MAYBE improve with something that causes no downsides, WAAAA!"

People more articulated then myself, have attempt to explain things to you. You have ignored them as well. But oh well...

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Asimov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,641 posts
7,482 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

1. Actually it would, since matches would feel more fair. Kongo vs Fuso is a lot closer of a matchup than Kongo vs Nagato.

2. This is a player behavior issue, not an MM issue.

3: It will make it easier for WG to identify weaknesses and improve these ships, though.

4: It would make the game more fair. Variety is a non-issue, it improves as more ship lines are added anyway.

5: This is a player behavior issue, not an MM issue.

6: This is a player behavior issue, not an MM issue.

7: This is a player behavior issue, not an MM issue.

Congrats, you found the subtle point of my post.

MM is not an issue, player attitude towards it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
5 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

People more articulated then myself, have attempt to explain things to you. You have ignored them as well. But oh well...

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Asimov

1) And I've engaged with them on equal footing, unfortunately I cannot do so with you without digging a hole several meters deep... and crouching down and that hurts my knees now.

2) I'm English, so I stand to agree that America has an issue with the cult of stupidity, as someone around here is all too evidentiary of.

There's a Mills quote that is very apropos but I don't feel the need to copy and paste someone else's fine ideas to make my own point.

 

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
11 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

I don't think you want me to answer that

You got called out and are desperately backtracking to try and make it sound like you didn't say something stupid. But it's too late. It's been quoted multiple times. So you might as well just accept that you brought in a bad analogy, drop the subject, and construct an actual argument to support +2/-2 or, as the thread's OP requested, point out actual downsides to +1/-1 that aren't unrelated issues it was never stated to address to begin with (IE: Player behavior issues)

 

Or, if you can't, just admit defeat.

3 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Congrats, you found the subtle point of my post.

MM is not an issue, player attitude towards it is.

Yes, +1/-1 won't fix that 46cm guns will overmatch every bow in the game not belonging to Grosser Kurfurst, but that's not an issue related to the MM spread. Neither is bow-on camping gameplay. Or players playing poorly. Or unicum divisions. Or detonations. Or carrier balance (Though balancing carriers in-tier would become easier when they aren't expected to be competitive when 2 tiers down, +1/-1 by itself does nothing about it). It doesn't affect ranked meta. It doesn't nerf smoke. It doesn't buff destroyers.

 

These issues aren't related to the MM spread. Construct an argument about what downsides it actually has.

 

There are tangible upsides which have been pointed out multiple times in this thread, and repeated in other threads already. Both in the stage of player experience and in the stage of WG Makes More Money. So what's the harm?

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
Just now, _RC1138 said:

1) And I've engaged with them on equal footing, unfortunately I cannot do so with you without digging a hole several meters deep... and crouching down and that hurts my knees now.

2) I'm English, so I stand to agree that America has an issue with the cult of stupidity, as someone around here is all too evidentry of.

 

You've done nothing but offer half-truths and misconceptions. You've been offered stats, percentages, and reasoning. Your rebuttals are word twisting and insults. Have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,384
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,466 posts
3,875 battles
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

You've done nothing but offer half-truths and misconceptions. You've been offered stats, percentages, and reasoning. Your rebuttals are word twisting and insults. Have a good day.

Funny, I've seen none of these stats, percentages, and only reasoning based on "It won't fix things it wasn't stated to fix in the first place".

 

No actual argument has been presented. No actual downsides to +1/-1 have been brought forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

You got called out and are desperately backtracking to try and make it sound like you didn't say something stupid. But it's too late. It's been quoted multiple times. So you might as well just accept that you brought in a bad analogy, drop the subject, and construct an actual argument to support +2/-2 or, as the thread's OP requested, point out actual downsides to +1/-1 that aren't unrelated issues it was never stated to address to begin with (IE: Player behavior issues)

 

Or, if you can't, just admit defeat.

What am I trying to backtrack out of? nothing. I used a word to describe my opinion of your "proposals". I still hold to that to that opinion.

What further downsides can I offer that haven't already been stated but brush aside, labeled as "drivel"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
Just now, Cpt_Cupcake said:

You've done nothing but offer half-truths and misconceptions. You've been offered stats, percentages, and reasoning. Your rebuttals are word twisting and insults. Have a good day.

No stats, no percentages other than ones pulled out of peoples asses, and no reasoning beyond cry-baby antics. There are no stats to support *either* a +-1MM or a +-2MM because Wargaming doesn't SHARE those stats. There are no percentages for the same reason. And there have been no arguments, reasoned or otherwise, AGAINST a +-1 MM beyond the 'Wahh I wana dominated people -2 from me," or "Waah it's just player skill, MM has nothing to do with it," which, fine, if Player skill is all that matters, it SHOULDNT MATTER if we put in a +-1 MM, the optics stay the same.

See you're mistaking an argument with noise. And I'm mistaking an arguer with a moron, and that's my own failing. But given the option, I'd rather be a pig disat... well you know the rest despite me starting to butcher that...

And no way have I offered half-truths or misconceptions: all I've pointed out is T4 is fine, which is is, go play it and find out yourself, and that we DONT KNOW how a +-1 MM may work in game, I think it will be better, but i offer no proof, just, unlike you, I'm not a gigantic [edited]coward afraid of change and would be willing to see a change tested. If it works, yay! If it doesn't, we switch back and are all the wiser. But the will to act is a huge delineation between bravery and cowardice and which one of us looking to see something move?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-BRS-]
Members
890 posts
7,637 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

And no way have I offered half-truths or misconceptions: all I've pointed out is T4 is fine, which is is, go play it and find out yourself, and that we DONT KNOW how a +-1 MM may work in game, I think it will be better, but i offer no proof, just, unlike you, I'm not a gigantic [edited]coward afraid of change and would be willing to see a change tested. If it works, yay! If it doesn't, we switch back and are all the wiser. But the will to act is a huge delineation between bravery and cowardice and which one of us looking to see something move?

Name calling doesn't help your case. Likewise, I don't see MM spread as a problem, you do thou. I would rather actual issues be address first, before we attempt to satisfy everyone's fantasies.

On the second bolded segment, screw it, put it in super test, Shouldn't cost more then a few weeks worth of peoples' paycheck and man hours to decides who wins this forum squabble. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
Just now, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Name calling doesn't help your case. Likewise, I don't see MM spread as a problem, you do thou. I would rather actual issues be address first, before we attempt to satisfy everyone's fantasies.

On the second bolded segment, screw it, put it in super test, Shouldn't cost more then a few weeks worth of peoples' paycheck and man hours to decides who wins this forum squabble. 

 

 

Oh boy are you rolling back. You'd rather see other issues taken first. Well a *large* number of people want to see this 'perceived' issue address. And since you don't see a *problem* with it being done, how about you stfu, and queue up, and wait your turn, cause people have been asking for +-1 since the ALPHA when the MM spread covered what? 10 tiers?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×